User talk:Bluetongue

Welcome!

Hello, Bluetongue, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair\^talk 07:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schapelle Corby

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites that you are affiliated with, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Longhair\^talk 07:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schapelle Site

Bluetongue, Longhair With regards to the Schapelle page, - are you both aware of the 3-revert rule?? [1]. I suggest care be taken. --Merbabu 09:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like some petty game to me. The guys/girls that run that site do so to help Schapelle Corby - nothing more and nothing less. I am interested in Schapelles situation and considered the link a worthwhile and postive addition. They even linked back to wikipedia!! To suggest that a link to a supporters forum for schapelle corby on a wiki for her is spam is completely outrageous and your decision to repeatedly remove it is indeed 100% malicious. The site is non profit so I do not for life of me what you think they have to gain for doing so. Why that link in particular would be removed whilst 'dead' links where left indicates the purility of all this. Furthermore, the removal of ALL relevant links from the Schapelle Corby wiki serves absolutely no purpose at all. Bluetongue 09:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please don't forget that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must therefore be based in fact. it is not there to push a certain point of view (in this case, neither for or against Schapelle). I removed that link as external links to forums, particularly those pushing a certain point of view, are generally discouraged. If you have come to wikipedia to push your opinions on Schapelle (or any other topic) you will find it difficult here. But if you are here to contribute to building an impartial factual encyclopedia, then welcome. You should get to know how wikipedia operates, and it's policies and procedures. This is good place to start:[2] then maybe move to here: [3] --Merbabu 13:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Come here to push my views" lol is that a joke mate? ALL the links on schapelle corbys wiki support her. Most of them have been there for 12 months!!! To suggest that everything that appears in wikipedia is based on fact is laughable. Alot of it is peoples points of view. Removing the link i readded whilst leaving links that pointed to non existant pages shows how petty this really is. There are THOUSANDS of wiki pages that have links to other sites pushing a certain point of view. The title of the heading under which the link did appear was Schapelle Corby Support Sites which is exactly what the link was. You removed it and left links to domains which were also supporter sites and has been placed on the wiki long after the link in question had. Why remove one but not the other? Why leave sites that had no content on them whatsoever? Why then would Longhair remove ALL links as being 'unencyclopedic' yet i could list thousands of wikis which had more links than Schapelle's wiki did. I reviewed the page on adding links and could see nothing about forums whatsoever, nor anything about links having to be impartial. I repeat once again there are thousands of wikis with thousands of links to all sorts of content. Bluetongue 00:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some points you might want consider:

regarding your claim that "thousands" of wikipedia articles have links to questionable content, would you also jump of a cliff if "thousands" did it?
As for the other links that are empty, you are no doubt as happy as I am that they have now been cleaned up. But I notice you didn't remove them either though. Perhaps you could have when you placed your link in the first time.
As for "pushing your views" if you stay with wikipedia you will quickly learn that comments such as "The guys/girls that run that site do so to help Schapelle Corby", make us think that you have a view to push.
And if you worked at not using 222 words where really 22 were needed, then you probably would't feel the need to "repeat" things 3 times.

--Merbabu 14:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, i checked up on some of your comments you later removed. As for biting newcomers, myself and the other editor were fairly even-handed on you. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and said "welcome". re-read it if you need to. My concern was not so much the content of the link, but that we already had 4 or 5. --Merbabu 14:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL this is nothing more than a pathetic power trip. I will repeat myself as many times as I want. Funny thing you never responded to the issue at hand LOL. The Section was entitled 'Schapelle Corby Support Sites - umm hello that reflects a rather large degree of impartiality doesnt it now lol. Far from having a view to push I READDED, yes it had been there all year, a link that previously existed and you with all your wiki brilliance had not removed. Yes I am well aware you spend countless hours everyday on wikipedia. It makes you feel useful and that's fantastic. YOU, I repeat YOU removed the damn link whilst leaving other links that were a) completely useless and b) exactly the same as the one you removed. If you were so concerned about the number of links why not remove the ones that DON'T WORK!!!! Get a freaking life mate you have achieved absolutely nothing here I hope you are proud of all your good work.!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluetongue (talk • contribs)

I need to get a life? Hmmm. It's just a link, get over it. ANd I fail to see the "power trip" - you and I have equal amounts of power. Why not edit something else - just remember there is a good chance someone might change it. lol. (nice username though - really) --Merbabu 14:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bluetongue is a type of lizard. Any decent aussie knows that. However it is easy to tell you ain't from here. Sampai jumpa!! Bluetongue 23:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lizard? Nah. You don't know what you are talking about. It is a beer: [4] But seriously, what makes you think (a) I don't' know what a Bluetongue is, and (b) I am not an aussie? --Merbabu 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a) you don't and b) you aren't. Bluetongue 23:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a) Oh, i thought i knew - lucky I have you to tell me I'm wrong. b) I thought I was an aussie, glad I have someone as smart as you to tell me I have been wrong for the last 32 years. --Merbabu 00:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspamming

We've been over this before... Please stop adding your supporter links to the Corby article. -- Longhair\^talk 21:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link has been there for months you power tripping cowboy. Christ your life must suck. The link is completely related to Schapelle Corby and is a useful source of current news on Schapelle;s situation. Get over yourself. Bluetongue 21:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as for being spam - I don't profit in anyway whatsoever from the site so please revise your definition of spam. Bluetongue 21:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's been there for months or not, what has changed for the link to now be considered acceptable for inclusion? I'm not going over the old argument again. Tone down your incivility also thanks. -- Longhair\^talk 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link doesnt even break the guidelines and if you think removing a link to a non profit site which supports an australian girl in an asian hell hole for the next 20 years has convinced me I am dealing with a pathetic dweeb on the dole. Sux to be you kid. Sux to be you. Bluetongue 22:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am done playing games. You get back to wasting time. Karmas a bitch. Bluetongue 22:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]